To create a greater understanding of men and women and our struggle in todays society, specifically The United States. Please feel free to contribute and offer your own writings and information in the comments section.

Friday, April 24, 2009

From Monogamy to Serial Monogamy and Polyandry

It is important to recognize by the other data I've published on my blog that if marriage i.e. monogamy is on the decline what other mating pair bond structures exist in all of known nature to take its place?

The decrease in marriage, the increase in age at first marriage, the increase in divorce which has plateaued into the preferences and prevalence of increasingly loose knit cohabitative relationships, our record high of 40% single woman birth rate and the advent of the "hook up" culture is actually our progression to a state of polyandry and with polyandry is the advent of matriarchy.

Drawing from simularities in monogamous and polyandrous male female pair bonds in nature the one defining factor is whether both sexes are required to provide resources to raise offspring as to whether the species is monogamous or polyandrous. The only other animal societies that demonstrate female polyandry are communistic social groups such as the bonobo apes and chimpanzees. Indeed early human societies have demonstrated polyandry, polygamy and matrilinial, egalitarian social structures in such socialistic communistic groups.

Not until individual monogamous or married family units of male and female were formed, not until competition between individual males through male-male competition and female choice became possible by the advancement of our species and the possibility of autonomous and individually self sustaining couples were possible did freverent competition among males and thus productive incentive among individual males come into full swing. Then and only then did civilization advance through individual male incentive to produce, distinguish ones self and gain status with out obfuscation of ones ability to do so through activities of communal resource acquisition.

Not until the male benefited directly from his labor in mating opportunities and mate quality and the ability to secure and support as much by himself did he do so in such freverency that modern civilization and all that you see around you was produced. Such a model transposed to our larger social construct has also formed capitalism. It is by allowing males to compete and distinguish their sexually selective traits from other males and benefit directly by their own success did we produce and advance as a species.

Such are the premise of both constructs that one can see monogamy and capitalism go hand in hand. Socialism and communistic social structures or those that emulate socialism or communism by the employment of government husbandry welfare and systemic male resource transference through alimony and child support go hand in hand with female polyandry.

In modern times with the advent of female acquisition of resources for herself along with systemic transference of male resources in marriage AND in divorce coupled with government husbandry support to single mothers has given her the opportunity to increase her genetic fitness and genetic diversity to mate and have offspring with multiple males without the consequence of the loss of male resource provision. An incentive is created for marriage, divorce and then remarriage. All while males she mated with in the past are required and forced by law to support her and her offspring in her new marriage. Many women simply cohabitate to keep alimony payments coming.

I can't tell you the sheer amount of women I've seen on my online dating site that state they have never been married but have a child. Indeed the polyandrous construct is evident in modern females. So I've seen first hand the 40% of women who bear children out of marriage. Many of these women as I have witnessed are looking for their next mate. This can continue as long as the female wants but her mate value diminishes at the second or third marriage. Not from lack of resources to raise the children which are forcefully transfered from previous males but her reproductive age and quite frankly male lack of interest in her bastard children from previous matings.

This model is of course deliberately facilitated by feminist institution of no-fault divorce laws to accomplish these ends. Not to mention the promotion of single motherhood as a lifestyle choice. Males are seen and used as isolated resource providers and not seen as valuable as parents by law. It is true that parental rights are not enforced or afforded males yet forced systemic transference of his resources is all that is important. The male has no right to fatherhood. Government husbandry and financial support to single mothers has increased significantly over the last several decades as well.

Drastic increase in welfare spending beginning in 1970:ABOVE: beginning with Lyndon Johnson's Great Society in the late 1960s, the welfare system was working hard to dismantle marriage by channeling taxpayers' money only to mothers, thereby making the husband and father irrelevant and unnecessary to the family's economic well-being. Widespread illegitimacy and single moms were the predictable result, producing the matriarchy that the feminists sought.

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them" -=President Thomas Jefferson=-

Unfortunately President Obama does not share our founding fathers vision when he applauded all the single mothers for a job well done during his father's day speech in 2007 and exclaimed he is here to help. Stating "do you need help!?" raising his voice louder "do you need help!?"

In essence we have reached a state of subsidized polyandry through forced male resource provision outside of the mated pair bond in the form of alimony and child support along with default female custody of the offspring and government husbandry for single mothers (similar to the Soviet Commissariats of Social Welfare.) Support for which in a natural state could only come from small tribal, socialistic or communal social structures. The parallels are striking.

As anyone can tell you a male naturally would not provide to a female who has left him and taken his children. What social construct that previously existed i.e. communistic social groups that made polyandry or polygamy possible now exists by unnatural and synthetic and systemic means of resource provision at the expense of the male. A male who is left isolated, alone and despondent to produce for a family that is not his own, for a woman that is not his mate and a child he is not allowed to have joint custody of but "visitation" of 4 days a month.

Females in nature given the chance will mate with multiple males given the opportunity but the trick in monogamous pair bonds is to trick the male into thinking he is raising his own offspring. This serves to exemplify female propensity toward polyandry if the resource support construct or the ability to trick the male is available.

Causes and effect are evident here. Due to all the provided incentives and mandated resource provision, the destruction of family is female driven as women initiate 70+ percent of all divorce.

The divorce rate in America for first marriage, vs second or third marriage50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce, according to Jennifer Baker of the Forest Institute of Professional Psychology in Springfield, Missouri.”

According to enrichment journal on the divorce rate in America:The divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41%The divorce rate in America for second marriage is 60%The divorce rate in America for third marriage is 73%

Furthermore, It has been found that an astounding 30% of DNA paternity tests when conducted by suspicion have found that the offspring are not in fact the males own. Even then men are required to pay for children they find out are not their own. Women bear no responsibility or penalty in this situation for paternity fraud.

Where lack of male resource provision is a given should a female leave a male in nature this is not the case in Western Society through the implementation of feminist doctrine. When males in nature find out the offspring is not their own or simply for good measure they commit infanticide where as human males are forced to provide to bastard children. In all regards all aspects of human mating in our society center around females and "their" offspring and the subjugation of men and the self appointed role of government to support them both in and out of marriage.According to the U.S. Census Bureau a large majority (84 percent) of child-support providers are men.-- www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/004012.html

Even young boys who are raped by adult women are forced to pay child support. When these cases occur it not an isolated practice as one can see from the numerous cases http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/numberthirtysix.htmhttp://www.fact.on.ca/news/news0303/mnd030311.htm

The reports of young boys exploited by feminist law doctrine is rampant but here are a few brief examples:

Kentucky: Harlan County prosecutor Alan Wagers said his office would help a 27 year old woman appeal a trial court's denialof her lawsuit to get the father of her child to pay support. The father was 14 at the time, essentially making him a victim ofstatutory rape because he was too young to consent. Rush was never prosecuted. [Bowling Green Daily News-AP, 5-3-96]

Colorado: The Rocky Mountain News reported on August 2, 1996 that Adams County is attempting to recover AFDC payments from a man who was about 12 when he was forced into parenthood, essentially by statutory rape.

Even sperm donors including a case where the male signed a contract agreeing he is not liable to pay child support to the lesbian couple he provided sperm to was forced to pay child support. This has increasingly become common in our current feminist state. The video states that male sperm donors are increasingly being made to pay child support. Here are several cases: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNczYdAVx5ohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpqjWn7lPq0

It must be made clear that the vast majority of men other than high status males are driven to serve women's needs in a monogamous construct i.e. male-male competition for female sexually selective choice for the best males. There is no instance of female based polyandry in nature, ONLY males with female harems, only male polygamy exists in all non communistic animals. At this, naturally only the most successful males in human society are able to be privileged with male polygamy. HOWEVER, unlike our matriarchal construct, polygamy is outlawed in both religious and political patriarchal infrastructures.

However, Such cases of polygamy by alpha males who distinguish their selective traits above all other males is evident in nature as well. The difference between humans and animals however is that we are able to build civilization and society around curbing our most base of animal instincts for the betterment of the entire social group.

Otherwise most males are not able to secure a sufficient amount of short term mating opportunities with females as high status males are and defer to long term mating strategy and commitment to one female. This is what Patriarchy is designed to do. For most males quality over quantity becomes the norm, monogamy becomes the incentive. Though incidental and subtle extramarital pairings do take place, monogamy is the primary construct in non communal social structures. Monogamy is the norm in societies that value fatherhood.

It is important to note that males are the variables from which to choose from. Males do not have innate sexually selective traits which are of value as females do. They do not desire to mate with males by default as males do with females. Male purpose is that of utility to such ends as the provision and protection of offspring and the mated pair bond. Weak males are weeded out through male-male competition. The most successful males i.e. the tallest, strongest, most intelligent, resourcefully successful males who provide the best utility garner multiple gamate parings with females i.e. polygamy for only the most successful or desirable males. This is what nature wants. This is what the female is choosing in animals and in humans. Even so, in a properly balanced system both male and female are content to form monogamous pair bonds in a structure which adhears to the natural sexual selection dynamic yet is limited as to how many times this can happen. Under Patriarchy the incentive is created to form only a single mated pair bond. Both female polyandry and male polygamy is curbed from existence for the most part.

We have given all this up in favor of female polyandry and matriarchy.

If male-male competitive structures are nullified i.e. the competition for territory, resources and the intelligent utilization of resources to support life, males will fail to be of utility or purpose to the mated pair bond. In such an instance they will fail to produce, lose incentive to compete and will not submit to multiple males or husbands to one female in the pair bond or even serial monogamy under forced transference of male resource provision by alimony and child support as is now the case. Such is the case now and we will find an increasing amount of men who are unwilling to commit to this.

Men inherently, rightfully and instinctually reject such a dynamic as men are increasingly doing through the Men's Rights Movement. We are quickly reaching a critical mass of ostracized males. Males have always rejected nullification of male purpose but it is finally becoming such a norm that men's voices are starting to be heard. As it continues the ranks of ostracized and nullified males will swell and our voices will become louder. Enfranchisement of men as fathers and husbands is what is needed for a civilization to thrive.

Feminists will tell you that when male-male competition is nullified through the female acquisition of such things as are currently sought after through the male, when females obtain for themselves these things there will no longer be wars or the destruction of resources and the planet. It is said that in matriarchy will rein peace. In lack of male competition for female selective choice for such things there will be peace.

I ask you, where will this leave the male when he is no longer in competition to be dominant over such things for the female. It will leave him nullified and unnecessary and female choice in sexual selection will be whatever she desires males to compete for.

The progressive and natural male competitive structure that has allowed us to advance as a species will be destoryed in favor of the stagnation of communism, polyandry and matriarchy. Full control over reproduction and perversion and control over natural sexually selective traits is the goal of feminism. Only when she becomes "equal" to the male will there be peace. Only when she is "independent" from the need of a male in a mated pair bond will there be peace. This could be no further from the truth. Feminism, socialism, matriarchy and polyandry go hand in hand. Polygamy or multiple gamete pairings that were once natures intention for only the most successful males will now be the province of ALL females through synthetic and forceful means and the subjugation of the human male to herself and her offspring.

Under patriarchy polygamy was outlawed, under matriarchy it is subsidized by male disposability by law.

I ask anyone to ponder what it would be like if men kept the children and females had to pay us support in alimony and child support. Don't you think the divorce rate would change, don't you think males would represent the 70%+ divorce rate that is now the province of females? Equal parental rights, not "visitation" must be established for fathers. Alimony to an independent female is unlawful, child support is unlawful as there should be no primary parent, no female only custody. Shared parenting should be the burden placed upon a broken mated pair bond of a dissolved family and not a get out of marriage free card for women.

Such a socially engineered aboration has and will continue to destroy the competitive dynamic incentive for male production,(one need only look at what production, invention and technology came out of the former Soviet Union, virtually nothing)

The goal is to substitute naturally sexually selective traits sought for in the male with any other competitive structure deemed useful to the female in what I dare say will be in the most wretched of forms and give forth to the expendability of all males to a monogamous pair bond, the destruction of stable relationships and family structure. Please see the rest of my blog for studies demonstrating the detriment of this and the lack of a father to children.

Ployandry rate: The graph below is a little outdated the single women birth rate is now 42% of all births. This is actually the polyandry rate as many if not all of these women continue to seek relationships with men (as I have witnessed on my online dating site where women list themselves as never married but have a child. Many of which state they want another child. It is important to note that this began with second wave feminism and the advent of government husbandry welfare, default female full child custody, no fault divorce and forced male resource provision outside of marriage. (Note: I don't come anywhere near this 42% of women! I don't want anything to do with them or their children that are made bastards by feminist doctrine.) Graph: United States CDC

Below: Divorce (Serial Monogamy) & Transition to non marital cohabitation relationships (which are twice as likely to dissolve. 70+% of dissolution of both are female initiated. Once again the parallel to the rise in both and the attribution to the institution of second wave feminism is evident. Notice the correlation between the date in time of increase of this divorce graph and the welfare spending graph posted earlier in this article and the single mother birth rate above. The correlation to second wave feminism is undeniable to this one point in time 1965-1970's. Please also see my blog post Cohabitation: Divorce Declining, But So Is Marriage: By Sharon Jayson, USA TODAY

9 comments:

I think that there is actually a battle raging between old school (squash the men) kind of feminists and the new wave of feminists. The new movement of feminists are glad that we're not back in the days when women were property, but we recognize the value of women who embrace the traditional role of wife and mother. I think that these women, myself included, believe strongly that families need a mother and a father and we need to appreciate the value that each brings to a family and a relationship. I also think that the dark days of feminism meaning anti-man are soon to be over.

I hope so and the rise and growth of the Men's Rights Movement since 2000 and the advent of ifeminists and groups like the Independent Women's Forum give me some hope. I still don't think it has reached a head yet as the most powerful feminists i.e. the ones who are able to institute laws and are in our educational system, government, media and judicial system run the show at this point.

Don't forget the women who married losers, divorced them to avoid financial ruin or abuse, didn't collect one penny of child support, but became successful and independent without ever remarrying,no welfare crap and without ANY parental assistance from the father. I know because I was this woman's son...and since I was 2 years old, we were on our own. I am now a university graduate, beginning a stable career at age 23. Losers come in both genders, and I will NOT be the man my father was, nor tolerate the same behavior from a wife. If one parent can do so much for their children, it begs the question: what has our society become that the average person has become so lazy and inept that they can't manage a household with not one, but 2 adults and their respective incomes?

Joker's Wild is right. Whenever I watch the music channel for a couple of hours or so I usually see two or three videos featuring lesbianism. I don't know why some men like them, I think they're disgusting.

Hmmm I don't believe men do like lesbians as much as you think. It is the media that tells us men like them. It is the media that dictates much of our perceptions of reality. Personally I don't watch TV.

Subscribe To REBUKING FEMINISM

About Me

Premise Claimer

To create a greater understanding of men and women and our struggle in todays society in the United States. Please feel free to contribute and offer your own writings and information in the comments section and at REBUKEFEM@YAHOO.COM.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or the people"

- 10th Amendment United States Constitution

Feminism stands on the principal of equality or classlessness. These principals are the hallmark of Marxist socialist theory. Essentially equal outcome by unequal means and unequal protection under law to reach these ends.

Males being a minority both in numbers and a minority of the voting majority has lead to class conflict, oppression and division based off "gender" of this minority class.

"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, (the female voting and numerical majority) that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority (males) possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression" - President Thomas Jefferson.

Affirmative Action, Title IX, VAWA, Divorce, Family and Child Custody Law to name a few.

Make no mistake, women are not your natural enemy. However, they are the body politic of feminism and the female political agency responsible for it. All women are responsible for feminism and the actions of their union. They have created class division between men and women toward the ends of dividing us both. The division of male and female as separate classes with unequal representation under law and policy has been the principal means to usurp and rule our people. Feminism has destroyed the common felicity between men and women. Feminism removed ALL male rights in marriage and thus divorce while absolving women of all liability of commitment. Feminism has removed the right to fatherhood. Men have no place in the family and should not commit to the institution of it. We must both fight the tyranny of feminism.